MI House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger and Second Amendment Rights.....

He claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment.  And yet, when faced with the possibility that Michigan Senate Bill 59 (SB 59), a bill that will, among other things, eliminate gun free zones for holders of concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) who have gone through an ADDITIONAL 9 hours of training (over and above the 8 hours required now to receive a CPL) and REQUEST an exemption from the zones, might actually pass, he gave the following warning to the Michigan House of Representatives (read this statement carefully):

"I support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as Michigan’s Constitution as they both protect our citizen’s right to bear arms.  Therefore, I support allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons.
 Unfortunately, we have many horrific cases that show that banning concealed weapons in certain places does not deter those who would harm innocent people.

However, this legislation will require significant discussion in the House. This is an emotional issue and I understand and respect that there is significant disagreement among our residents. If it comes over from the Senate, the House will need to undergo its own fact finding, testimony from the public, and the bill will receive full and careful deliberation."

SB 59 spent over a year in the Senate Judiciary Committee being studied, deliberated, and testified to before it was finally passed out of committee to the full senate for a vote (scheduled at this time for the week of April 20).  But not satisfied with this level of due diligence, the Speaker has put the House on notice that he expects them to spend even more time, money, and energy debating an issue that has already been put to rest by the Federal District Court of Maryland.  His reasoning?  "This is an emotional issue..."


The statement above first appeared in an interview with West Michigan reporters on March 27, 2012.  Following that interview, I sent Speaker Bolger a letter detailing the case to move expeditiously when SB 59 passes in the Senate, and asking him on the basis of the evidence to reconsider his instructions to the House to study this issue to death.  In an emailed response, he sent me the same statement he gave to the press, containing the same rationale shown above.


In response, I emailed Speaker Bolger the following letter, which I now post as an open letter to Rep. Bolger, once again asking him to reconsider his instructions to the Michigan House.  I ask all like-minded individuals to take the time to contact his office to voice your displeasure as well.

Mr. Speaker,

I appreciate your reply.  However, I cannot be in stronger disagreement with your position.

With all due respect, we do not decide the exercise of Constitutional Rights based upon the anticipated "emotional" response that might be engendered by the exercise of the protected right.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of speech based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of religion based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of press, or association, or due process or protection from illegal search and seizure based upon emotional considerations.

As Judge Legg opined in his recent U.S. District Court decision, we decide the exercise of these rights based upon the fact that the rights EXIST.  Period.  That is all the justification we need.

I can point to dozens, if not hundreds, of incidents throughout our history that would support the case for limiting the exercise of the freedom of speech or press or religion - the exercise of each of these rights engender emotional responses that have led to all manner of emotional outcry by detractors.  And yet, we not only protect the exercise of these rights, we celebrate their exercise!

The same must be true with regard to the RIGHT protected by both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution.  Does the issue of firearms carry engender an emotional response?  Absolutely.  But just as it is true that this is not a consideration that hampers the free exercise of all of our other Constitutionally protected RIGHTS/FREEDOMS, so you cannot base your decision to continue limiting what federal courts have declared to be a basic right, the exercise thereof requiring no justification other than the existence of the right - the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in our own defense - on the argument that "[T]his is an emotional issue."

Sir, with all due respect, your continued reticence to implement the FULL EXERCISE of our Second Amendment right flies in the face of the oath that you took upon entering the Michigan legislature:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Representative according to the best of my ability."

Your duty is to protect and support the exercise of all of the rights prescribed in both Constitutions - regardless of the emotional response they might engender from detractors.

Respectfully,

Speaker Bolger can be reached at the following:

House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger 1-877-BOLGER-1 (office) 517-373-9119 (fax) JamesBolger@house.mi.gov